OPINION - Editorial

The meaning of life

Describing violence against the most vulnerable

Somewhere in all of this, a part of us thinks it is good news, at least, that folks are now using the language to describe rather than to camouflage and conceal. When pro-abortion types have (mis)used the language in the past, it was to gloss over what abortion really is. What it chronicles, details. Which is how pro-abortion became Pro Choice.

Why, of course. Who can be against choice? No need to get into the details, such as this one: Nobody is giving the baby involved much of a choice during an abortion.

We remember a senator who spent most of his life in the papers, but probably won't get much of a mention in the history books, talking of Pregnancy Related Services. The hero of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy, used to use that phrase quite a bit. Some of us, among the slower types, used to wonder about Pregnancy Related Services. Would that be like getting ice cream and rubbing feet? It took us a while, but we eventually realized what he was talking about, if not overtly describing.

Over the years, the debate over abortion has gone down several rabbit holes, but one thing has remained constant: the abuse of the language.

That might be changing. For now.

Last month, the Trump administration announced it was reviewing research involving the uses of fetal tissue. And canceling a small contract that some conservative lawmakers had objected to, one that they said supported "research using the body parts of children whose lives have been violently ended by abortion."

This new argument is the modern version of the old stem cell debate. When is life not? When is a human not? Is it unethical to create life just to destroy it, then use the parts for research? Or maybe just . . . parts is parts.

The answer probably depends on your point of view of abortion itself. Is it the taking of a life? Or maybe just the removal or unwanted growth, like a skin tag?

The Trump administration, more precisely the Department of Health and Human Services, says it's going to audit "all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations."

Why? Because back in June, the Food and Drug Administration said it would look into buying $16,000 worth of fetal tissue for research. Or as the FDA put it then:

"Fresh human tissues are required for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system. This human immune system allows us to test biological drug products for safety and efficacy."

Fresh human tissue. At least we're not hiding anything. For that, at least, we can be grateful.

Of course, auditing any government action to make sure it complies with the law would be controversial in certain precincts. At least if it might one day restrict abortions or the use of fetal tissue. Or as a spokesman for some outfit called the Union of Concerned Scientists put it, the review could have a "really chilling effect."

One would hope so!

Research would not be stopped because of this audit, but We the People have representatives who've passed certain laws against the buying and selling of this human flesh, and Americans would like to see those laws enforced. If anything untoward is going on, here's hoping the audit has a "really chilling effect" on it. And if the audit finds that no crime has been committed, at least no crime on the books, then all should be copacetic, no?

We get the feeling that, if Americans begin using real language to describe what's going on in our clinics and labs--and more folks begin using the phrase "fresh human tissue" when talking about fresh human tissue--then more and more people will begin catching on. And find it harder to defend the indefensible. And the Pro Lifers among us will take our chances in such an environment.

Editorial on 10/14/2018

Upcoming Events